Lawyer Discipline

Lawyer Discipline

The Office
of Lawyer Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
and component of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in
carrying out its constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice
of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law
in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at
Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N.
Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877)
315-6941.

Disciplinary Proceeding against Milton D.
Schierland

On Oct. 19, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the petition
for consensual license revocation filed by Milton D. Schierland pursuant
to SCR 22.19. Schierland's petition acknowledged that he could not
successfully defend himself against allegations of professional
misconduct that included paying bribes to a district attorney on behalf
of criminal defendant clients, filing false tax returns, and giving
false or misleading information to the court, contrary to SCR 20:1.2(d);
20:8.4(b), (c), and (d); and 20:3.3(a). Schierland's Wisconsin law
license had been summarily suspended previously on the basis of his
criminal conviction for filing a false tax return. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Schierland, No. 04-2487-D.

Disciplinary Proceeding against Rodney Thomas
Carroll

By order dated Oct. 19, 2004, the supreme court summarily suspended
the Wisconsin law license of Rodney Thomas Carroll of Dubuque, Iowa,
effective immediately. The suspension was based on Carroll's guilty plea
in Iowa to theft in the second degree and the temporary suspension of
Carroll's Iowa law license effective May 7, 2004. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Carroll, No. 04-2055-D.

Disciplinary Proceeding against Larry
Farris

On Oct. 26, 2004, the supreme court suspended the license of Larry
Farris for 60 days, effective Nov. 30, 2004. Farris and the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) stipulated to the facts, misconduct, and level
of discipline.

A continuing legal education (CLE) license suspension on June 3,
2002, is at the heart of the current proceeding. Farris sought
reinstatement on July 25, 2002, from that suspension. He indicated in
his petition that he had only appeared in one small claims matter during
the suspension. Shortly thereafter, during a telephone conversation with
OLR personnel, he similarly did not allude to any other acts that would
constitute the practice of law during his suspension. However, the OLR
later determined that during the CLE suspension Farris had participated
in 11 legal matters either by making court appearances or by signing or
filing court documents.

As a result of this misconduct, Farris entered a
diversion/alternative to discipline program under SCR 22.10 on Sept. 20,
2002, during which he was not to practice law. However, the OLR later
determined that during this diversion program Farris had participated in
12 legal matters. Farris was reinstated to the practice of law on Oct.
6, 2003. During the OLR's subsequent investigation of his prior
unauthorized practice during the CLE suspension, Farris gave an
incomplete report of its extent.

Farris violated SCR 31.10(1) by engaging in the practice of law while
his State Bar membership was suspended for a CLE violation, which, in
turn, is designated misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(f). He violated SCR
20:8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation, by failing to disclose in his July 2002 petition for
reinstatement the exact extent of his prior unauthorized practice. He
violated SCR 22.03(6), prohibiting a willful failure to provide
information to the OLR during an investigation, which, in turn, is
designated misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(f).

The court imposed a 60-day suspension, effective Nov. 30, 2004, and
ordered compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the
duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Farris, 2004 WI 125.

Disciplinary Proceeding against Hans K.
Ribbens

By order dated Oct. 19, 2004, the supreme court granted Hans K.
Ribbens' petition for voluntary revocation of his law license. In his
petition, Ribbens, of Sherwood, Wis., acknowledged that he could not
successfully defend against 40 counts of misconduct that had been
alleged in an OLR complaint and another 21 counts that were under
investigation by the OLR. As part of the revocation order, the court
adopted the OLR's revised recommendations with respect to restitution
and directed Ribbens to make restitution totaling $34,570 to the
Clients' Security Fund and three clients within 60 days of the order.
Ribbens also was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ribbens, 2004 WI 126.

Hearing to Reinstate John Miller Carroll

On Jan. 28, 2005, at 9 a.m., at the Law Center for Children and
Families, 435 S. Yellowstone Drive, Madison, Wis., a public hearing will
be held before Referee Judith Sperling Newton on the petition of John
Miller Carroll, New London, to reinstate his license. Any interested
person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in
opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.

The supreme court suspended Carroll's license for one year, effective
Jan. 10, 2002, for professional misconduct involving multiple trust
account, retainer, and fee matters; failure to diligently pursue a
client's claim; failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter; failure to cooperate with the grievance
investigation of the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
(BAPR, now the Office of Lawyer Regulation); and engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, 248 Wis.
2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.

While suspended, Carroll was publicly reprimanded for his
presuspension conduct in three client matters: for misconduct consisting
of neglecting a matter; for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; for providing financial assistance
to a client in connection with pending litigation; and for failing to
timely return a file to a client.2003-OLR-09.

Carroll also has received a 1992 private reprimand for failing to
hold in trust funds in which both he and his former law firm claimed an
interest; a 1997 private reprimand for performing work for a client
after his services were terminated and for misrepresenting that he had
filed a motion on behalf of the client; and a 1999 public reprimand for
neglecting a matter, failing to communicate with a client, and failing
to return a retainer.

Carroll previously petitioned for reinstatement. After a hearing, the
referee recommended denial of his petition. Carroll appealed. On March
10, 2004, the supreme court denied Carroll's petition based on
deficiencies in Carroll's proof as to several reinstatement
requirements, primarily relating to trust accounting issues.

In the current reinstatement proceeding, Carroll is required to
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among
other things, he has not practiced law during the suspension; he has
maintained competence in and learning of the law by attending identified
educational activities; his conduct since the suspension has been
exemplary and above reproach; he has a proper understanding of and
attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the bar and
will act in conformity with the standards; he can safely be recommended
to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to
be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in
matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of
the courts; he has fully described all of his business activities during
the suspension; and he has made restitution to or settled all claims of
persons injured or harmed by his misconduct or, if not, has explained
his failure or inability to do so.

Carroll also must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin,
that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to
the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, and
that he has fully complied with the terms of the suspension and with the
requirements of SCR 22.26.

Hearing to Reinstate Thomas E. Zablocki

On Feb. 16, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., a public hearing will be held before
Referee John A. Fiorenza at the Law Office of Halling & Cayo S.C.,
320 E. Buffalo St., Suite 700, Milwaukee, Wis., on the petition of
Thomas E. Zablocki, Franklin, to reinstate his Wisconsin law license.
Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support
of, or in opposition to, the petition for reinstatement.

The supreme court suspended Zablocki's license for six months,
effective Aug. 10, 1998. The suspension was based on Zablocki's
professional misconduct involving failing to maintain a client trust
account for several years and to keep required records of his receipts
and disbursements of client funds; depositing client funds into several
personal checking accounts and commingling them with his own funds; and
failing to disburse to a client settlement proceeds he received on her
behalf, misrepresenting to the client that she was not entitled to any
of the settlement funds, using the balance of those funds for his own
purposes, and not promptly delivering a portion of the settlement funds
in payment of a health care provider's fee. The referee also concluded
that Zablocki failed to respond to inquiries from BAPR into his handling
of the settlement proceeds and failed to timely produce or take
reasonable steps to obtain and provide bank records requested by BAPR. A
more detailed description of Zablocki's misconduct is set forth in
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Zablocki, 219 Wis. 2d 313, 579
N.W.2d 233 (1998).

In 2001, the supreme court publicly reprimanded Zablocki for conduct
that occurred after the court suspended Zablocki's license in 1998 but
before the effective date of the suspension. At that time, regardless of
his imminent suspension from the practice of law, Zablocki filed a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy action on behalf of a husband and wife despite an
obvious conflict of interest due to Zablocki's representation of the
wife in a divorce action against the husband. Zablocki failed to obtain
the written consent of either the husband or wife to this arrangement.
Zablocki also failed to properly and timely notify the clients, the
divorce court, and the bankruptcy court of the suspension of his law
license and his inability to act in the pending matters; failed to
refund any portion of the fee the couple had paid him for the bankruptcy
action; and failed to keep complete records of trust accounts funds. A
more detailed description of Zablocki's misconduct is set forth in
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Zablocki, 2001 WI 115, 247
Wis. 2d 994, 635 N.W.2d 288.

Zablocki previously filed a petition for reinstatement on Dec. 16,
1998, which was dismissed due to his failure to prosecute the
petition.

To reinstate, Zablocki must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence that, among other things, he has not practiced law
during the suspension; he has maintained competence in and learning of
the law by attending identified educational activities; his conduct
since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; he has a
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed on members of the bar and will act in conformity with the
standards; he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the
courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to
represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and
in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the
bar and as an officer of the courts; he has fully described all of his
business activities during the suspension; and he has made restitution
to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by his misconduct
or, if not, has explained his failure or inability to do so.

Zablocki also must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin,
that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to
the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, and
that he has fully complied with the terms of the suspension and with the
requirements of SCR 22.26.